The company, its recent acquisition ATI Technologies, Inc., and Nvidia Corp., were named as defendants in such suits, which were filed in the Northern District of California, the Central District of California, the District of Massachusetts, the Western District of Wisconsin, the District of South Carolina, the District of Kansas and the District of Vermont.

According to the complaints, plaintiffs filed each of the actions after reading press reports that the company and Nvidia had received subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division in connection with the DOJ’s investigation into potential antitrust violations related to graphics processing units and cards.

All of the actions appear to allege that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices of graphics processing units and cards in violation of federal antitrust law and/or state antitrust law.

Further, each of the complaints is styled as a putative class action and alleges a class of plaintiffs (either indirect or direct purchasers) who purportedly suffered injury as a result of the defendants’ alleged conduct.

The majority of the complaints propose a class period from November or December 2002 to the present.

The court held a hearing on defendants’ motions to dismiss in September 2007. On Sept. 27, 2007, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motions to dismiss.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. -- http://www.amd.com/-- is a global semiconductor company with facilities worldwide. It provides processing solutions for the computing, graphics and consumer electronics markets. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2006, the Company offered primarily x86 microprocessors, for the commercial and consumer markets, which are used for control and computing tasks, and embedded microprocessors for commercial, commercial client and consumer markets. On Oct. 25, 2006, theCompany acquired ATI Technologies Inc. As a result of the acquisition, the Company began to supply three-dimensional graphics, video and multimedia products, and chipsets for personal computers, including desktop and notebook PCs, professional workstations and servers, and products for consumer electronic devices, such as mobile phones, digital television and game consoles.

The entertainment centers can collapse if the back panel is not secure, posing a risk of death or serious injury to consumers.

The firm has received a report of a fatality when the entertainment center collapsed on a 19 month old child. The firm has received three other reports of minor injuries involving the entertainment center.

The recalled entertainment centers are black with two lower miter-framed doors, two glass doors at the top, and CD storage racks. They measure about 54 inches wide, 71 inches high, and 20 inches deep. They were sold under the Ridgewood/Charleswood brand name. Model number 93956 is printed on the instruction manual.

They were sold at mass merchandisers nationwide, including K-Mart stores, from June 2000 through May 2005 for about $200. Theentertainment centers were manufactured in the United States.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled entertainment centers and contact Ameriwood to receive a free support panel repair kit.

ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Pa. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action pending against ATI Technologies, Inc., an acquisition of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

In August and September 2005, five class actions were filed against ATI and certain of its directors and officers on behalf of shareholders who purchased ATI common shares between Oct. 7, 2004 and on or about June 23, 2005.

The claims allege that ATI and certain of its directors and officers violated U.S. securities laws by failing to disclose material facts and making statements that contained misrepresentations about its business and future outlook.

It is alleged that as a result of the failure to disclose material facts and the alleged misrepresentations, ATI's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices until the stock price dropped on the news of ATI's third quarter results in June 2005.

The claims further allege that while in possession of material undisclosed information, certain of ATI's directors and officers sold a portion of their common shares at inflated prices.

On May 23, 2006, the court dismissed one of the five actions because the plaintiff failed to serve the summons and complaint. The remaining four lawsuits were consolidated into a single action, and on Sept. 8, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.

In February and March 2006, two consumer class actions were filed against ATI Technologies, Inc. -- an acquisition of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., (AMD) -- and three of its subsidiaries. The complaints allege that ATI had misrepresented its graphics cards as being “HDCP ready” when they were not, and on that basis alleged violations of state consumer protection statutes, breach of express and implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

On April 18, 2006, the court entered an order consolidating the two actions. On June 19, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, alleging violations of California's consumer protection laws, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.

On June 21, 2006, a third consumer class action that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee in May 2006 alleging claims that are substantially the same was transferred to the Northern District of California, and on July 31, 2006, that case was also consolidated into the consolidated action pending in the Northern District of California.

ATI filed an answer to the consolidated complaint on Aug. 7, 2006.

On December 1, 2006, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. ATI filed its opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification on March 29, 2007.

The class certification hearing was held on May 21, 2007.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the Court entered an order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification without prejudice, granting plaintiffs additional time to conduct class discovery and granting plaintiffs certain fees and costs.

The suit is “In Re: ATI Technologies HDCP Litigation, Case No. 5:06-cv-01303-JW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge James Ware with referral to Judge Howard R. Lloyd.

OTPP is the court-appointed co-lead plaintiff in the Biovail Securities Litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. OTPP, with co-lead plaintiff Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund, led the prosecution of this litigation on behalf of a class of investors who purchased Biovail common stock during the period February 7, 2003 through March 2, 2004.

In late 2003 and early 2004, a number of securities class actioncomplaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of New York naming Biovail and certainofficers and directors as defendants.

On or about June 18, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a consolidatedamended complaint, alleging among other matters, that thedefendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgatedthereunder.

The company responded to the complaint by filing a motion todismiss, which the court denied. Thereafter, the company filedits answer denying the allegations in the complaint.

On Aug. 25, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated secondamended class action complaint under seal. The second amendedcomplaint alleges, among other matters, that the defendantsviolated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

More specifically, the second amended complaint alleges that thedefendants made materially false and misleading statements thatinflated the price of the company's stock between Feb. 7, 2003and March 2, 2004.

Plaintiffs sought to represent a class consisting of all persons, other than the defendants and their affiliates, who purchased the company's stock during that period.

On Feb. 28, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for classcertification. The company has opposed that motion.

On Oct. 16, 2006, the company filed its answer denying theallegations in the second amended complaint (Class Action Reporter, Apr. 18, 2007).

The settlement was reached after nearly four years of intensive litigation, and is the second largest settlement of a securities case involving a Canadian issuer, behind only Nortel, another class action in which OTPP served as co-lead plaintiff. The settlement will also include corporate governance relief to be negotiated.

Commenting on the settlement, President and Chief Executive Officer of OTPP, Jim Leech, stated: "This is an excellent recovery and reflects the impact that institutional investors like OTPP can have in securities class actions. We are pleased to obtain this recovery on behalf of the class and our more than 271,000 active and retired teachers, for whom we invest."

The settlement is subject to approval by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit is "In Re: Biovail Corp. Securities Litigation, CaseNo. 03-CV-8917," filed in the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of New York under Judge Richard Owen.

CHICAGO TITLE: Kan. Court Dismisses Suit Over Recording Fees------------------------------------------------------------U.S. District Judge John Lungstrum dismissed a class action filed against Chicago Title for alleged overcharges in recording fees, Dan Margolies of Kansas City Star.

Kansas residents James A. and Aimee Doll alleged that when they refinanced the mortgage on their house in 2002, Chicago Title, which acted as the settlement agent, overcharged them $6 in recording fees for the mortgage and release. They paid $45 when the company paid only $39 to record the documents. The Dolls said the company failed to refund the excess charge.

The couple sought to have the case certified as a class action on behalf of residents of Kansas, 17 other states and the District of Columbia. But Judge Lungstrum ruled that the Dolls’ claims were not typical of all claims in the would-be class.

The Dolls has exceeded the two-year statute of limitations governing claims for breach of fiduciary duty and “conversion” in Kansas when they filed the suit in September 2006. They relied on Kansas’ discovery rule, but many of the possible class members had closed their mortgage deals within two years of the filing of the suit.

“If Chicago Title were to succeed on its limitations defense to plaintiffs’ tort claims,” Judge Lungstrum wrote, “other class members with no limitations problem would be bound to the adverse judgment against the plaintiffs.”

The Dolls’ attorney, Kirk May of Rouse Hendricks German May, said his clients are contemplating an appeal. He also said they could file a suit with another plaintiff in a new jurisdiction -- just like similar suits the law firm filed against title insurance companies.

Chicago Title is represented by Rick Bien of Brian Fries and Alok Ahuja of Lathrop & Gage.

COMMERCE BANCORP: Faces Consolidated Suit in N.J. Over TD Merger----------------------------------------------------------------Complaints filed against Commerce Bancorp, Inc. with regards to its agreement and plan of merger with Toronto-Dominion Bank have been consolidated in the New Jersey Superior Court, Camden County, Law Division.

On Oct. 2, 2007, the company and The Toronto-Dominion Bank entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which TD will acquire the Company and the Company will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of TD.

The Company’s Board of Directors approved the Merger Agreement and has adopted a resolution recommending the approval of the Merger Agreement by the Company’s shareholders.

Since the announcement on Oct. 2, 2007 of the signing of the Merger Agreement, ten putative shareholder class actions related to the merger have been filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Camden and Essex Counties.

All of the complaints name as defendants the Company and certain of the Company’s directors and officers, and seven of the ten complaints name TD as a defendant.

The complaints have been consolidated in the New Jersey Superior Court, Camden County, Law Division.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the consideration agreed to in the Merger Agreement is inadequate and unfair to the Company’s shareholders and that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement and pursuing the plan of merger as described therein by failing to maximize shareholder value, creating deterrents to other offers and shareholder dissent (including by agreeing to pay a termination fee to TD under certain circumstances set forth in the Merger Agreement), and by putting the personal interests of certain of the Company’s directors ahead of the interests of the shareholders.

The complaints further allege that TD aided and abetted the directors in breaching their respective fiduciary duties.

The lawsuits seek injunctive, declaratory and other equitable relief as well as monetary damages.

COMPREHENSIVE CARE: Seeks Dismissal of Suits Over Hythiam Merger----------------------------------------------------------------Comprehensive Care Corp. is seeking for a dismissal of purported class actions that were filed against it in Delaware in connection with the now mutually terminated Agreement and Plan of Merger with Hythiam, Inc.

Initially, the company and nine current and former board members were named as defendants in two class actions filed by two shareholders on Jan. 23, 2007 and Feb. 1, 2007, respectively.

In the similar complaints, filed in the Chancery Court of Delaware, the plaintiffs seek permanent injunctive and other equitable relief to prevent Hythiam, Inc. from acquiring 49.95% of the company's outstanding common shares that it does not currently own (either directly or through its wholly owned subsidiary, Healthcare Investment Partners, LLP [Woodcliff]) from the remaining minority shareholders.

The plaintiffs allege that the consideration proposed to the minority shareholders by Hythiam is inadequate, through coercive means, without fair process and through material misleading information.

On May 25, 2007, the parties mutually terminated the Agreement and Plan of Merger. The plaintiffs’ counsel has acknowledged that the lawsuits are now moot and has agreed to dismiss them, but has not yet done so.

On August 30, 2007, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss their case without prejudice, with the court reserving jurisdiction for their fee application.

On Oct. 10, 2007, the company requested that the court dismiss the case with prejudice, and not allow legal fees to be awarded to the plaintiff’s counsel.

EI DUPONT: Ontario Court Certifies Resins Price Fixing Suit-----------------------------------------------------------The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified a class action against E.I. DuPont Canada Co. on behalf of a group of Canadian manufacturers of plastic parts supplying the automotive industry. The case is the first of its kind in Canada to be certified as a class action.

Axiom Plastics Inc. of Aurora, Ontario has sued DuPont Canada for alleged breaches of the Competition Act, RSC 1985, c. C-34 in relation to the manner in which prices of DuPont engineering resins are established.

The plaintiff claims that DuPont Canada has utilized a system, known as the Credit Upon Proof of Sale system, in order to enhance and maintain the price of engineering resins sold to moulders which manufacture parts for the automotive industry.

The lawsuit covers sales of resins to moulders directly by DuPont Canada and indirectly through DuPont Canada's three authorized distributors: Canada Colors and Chemicals Limited, Ashland Canada Inc., which operates as General Polymers, and PolyOne Distribution Canada Ltd. DuPont Canada denies the plaintiff's claim. No court has ruled on whether the claim will succeed at trial.

The claim alleges that DuPont Canada, through its pricing system and its arrangements with its authorized distributors, set and maintained the price of specialized resins, known as 'engineering resins', at artificially high prices.

"Engineering resins are the single largest component in our sector's cost of goods" says Axiom's president, Perry Rizzo.

"We believe that DuPont Canada's actions have harmed the competitiveness of Axiom and all Canadian plastics manufacturers competing in the international automotive market."

In the ruling, Justice Alexandra Hoy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that the main focus of the alleged conspiracy involved a system of price concessions and rebates granted by DuPont Canada to its authorized distributors which allowed DuPont Canada to effectively control the resale price of resins sold by its independent distributors.

The judge noted the evidence that many of the automotive parts manufacturers are in dire financial straits and are required to compete in a fiercely competitive market.

David Sterns, one of the lawyers for Axiom, pointed out that the court's decision represents the first class action to be certified involving the beleaguered Canadian auto parts industry.

The lawsuit is brought by the law firms of Sotos LLP and McCarthy Tetrault LLP.

ENTERGY CORP: Tex. Court Denies Power Price Suit Review Motion --------------------------------------------------------------The Texas Supreme Court denied Entergy Corp.'s request for reconsideration of a Court of Appeals order denying the company's petition for review of a decision to remand the Texas Power Price Lawsuit to the district court.

In August 2003, a lawsuit was filed in the district court of Chambers County, Texas by Texas residents on behalf of a purported class apparently of the Texas retail customers of Entergy Gulf States Inc. who were billed and paid for electric power from Jan. 1, 1994 to the present.

Entergy Gulf States is not a named defendant, but is alleged to be a co-conspirator.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants implemented a “price gouging accounting scheme” to sell to plaintiffs and similarly situated utility customers higher priced power generated by the defendants while rejecting and/or reselling to off-system utilities, less expensive power offered and/or purchased from off-system suppliers and/or generated by the Entergy system.

In particular, plaintiffs allege that the defendants manipulated and continue to manipulate the dispatch of generation so that power is purchased from affiliated expensive resources instead of buying cheaper off-system power.

Plaintiffs estimate that customers in Texas were charged at least $57 million above prevailing market prices for power.

Plaintiffs seek actual, consequential and exemplary damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and disgorgement of profits. In September 2003, the Entergy defendants removed the lawsuit to the federal court in Galveston, and in October 2003, filed a pleading seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.

In October 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court.

In April 2006, the Court of Appeals denied a motion for rehearing of the decision to remand the case to the district court.

In May 2006, Entergy filed a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Supreme Court. The Texas Supreme Court requested full briefing from the parties before consideration of whether to exercise its discretion to grant review of this matter.

In August 2007, the Texas Supreme Court denied Entergy's request for reconsideration of the court's order denying Entergy's petition for review.

Entergy expects to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the decision.

Entergy Corp. -- http://www.entergy.com-- is an integrated energy company engaged primarily in electric power production and retail electric distribution operations. Entergy owns and operates power plants with approximately 30,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity and it is a nuclear power generator in the U.S. Entergy delivers electricity to 2.6 million utility customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. The Company operates through two business segments: Utility and Non-Utility Nuclear. Entergy also operates the non-nuclear wholesale assets business.

EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: No Trial Date Set for N.J. Securities Suit--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet to set a trial date for a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Exide Technologies, Inc.

In June 2005, the company received notice that two former stockholders, Aviva Partners LLC and Robert Jarman, separately filed purported class actions against the company and certain of its current and former officers, alleging violations of certain federal securities laws.

The cases were filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the company's stock between Nov. 16, 2004 and May 17, 2005.

The complaints allege that the named officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20 (a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading public statements made during this period by the company and its officers. The complaints did not specify an amount of damages sought.

The judge also appointed the law firms of Lerach Coughlin Stoja Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Schatz & Nobel, P.C. as co-lead counsel for the putative class.

On May 8, 2006 co-lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint in which they reiterated the claims described above but purported to state a claim on behalf of those who purchased the company's stock between May 5, 2004 and May 17,2005.

On June 22, 2006, defendants filed their motion to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaints briefing. The court has granted the company's motion to dismiss the complaint and permitted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint, which it did.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 13, 2007, the Court denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

Discovery in this litigation is proceeding and is expected to continue throughout the remainder of 2007 and 2008. No trial date has been set in this matter.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Aviva Partners LLC v. Exide Technologies, et al.,Case No. 3:05-cv-03098-MLC-JJH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Mary L. Cooper, with referral to Judge John J. Hughes.

FIRST CONSULTING: Sued in Calif. Over Computer Sciences Merger --------------------------------------------------------------Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announced that a class action has been filed in the Superior Court for the State of California on behalf of shareholders of First Consulting Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: FCGI) in connection with the agreement and Plan of Merger with Computer Sciences Corp.

The purpose of the action is to seek the highest possible offer for the public shares of First Consulting.

FLORIDA: Trial Begins in Suit Over Broward Citrus Tree Cuttings---------------------------------------------------------------Trial in a suit over Florida's citrus canker eradication program in Broward County opened on Dec. 3, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports.

The suit was filed against the state's Agriculture Department on behalf of about 70,000 Broward County homeowners whose trees were cut down because they were within 1,900 feet of infected trees.

"This case is about the deprivation of private property rights in violation of the state constitution," said Robert Gilbert, lead attorney for the homeowners, in his opening statement before Broward Circuit Judge Ronald Rothschild. He said the state settled on a policy of destroying hundreds of thousands of residential citrus trees in South Florida without proper compensation, because it was cheaper than inspecting them regularly or undertaking eminent domain proceedings to pay a fair price, according to the report.

The state maintains that all the trees that were destroyed werewithin 1,900 feet of a canker-infected tree, so they wereexposed and had no value, according to Wes Parsons, attorney forthe Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

For more than 20 years, the state tried unsuccessfully to stopthe spread of the tree disease from Southeast Florida into thecommercial citrus belt of Central Florida.

Though canker is harmless to humans, it causes blemishes onfruit. Some experts say the disease weakens the tree anddecreases its production.

After spending nearly $500 million since 1995 and failing tostop the disease, the federal and state governments gave up inJanuary 2006.

During the eradication effort, the state gave homeowners a $100Wal-Mart voucher for the first tree cut, encouraging residentsto replant other trees, shrubs or plants. The state also wrotechecks for $55 each for all other citrus trees removed from ayard.

During the trial, the homeowners opened with the testimony of Claudette Abrams, of Monroe Street in Hollywood. It was followed by that of John Harris, a certified arborist and tree appraiser, who described his appraisals of citrus trees in Deerfield Beach. Mr. Harris acknowledged that if the trees he appraised had citrus canker they would have no value. Mr. Gilbert also called to the stand Deputy Agriculture Commissioner Craig Meyer.

Timothy Schubert, head of the department's Plant Pathology Section, is testifying for the Agriculture Department.

FLORIDA: Palm Beach Residents to Get Payment for Citrus Trees-------------------------------------------------------------A county circuit judge ruled that the state should compensate Palm Beach county residents whose citrus trees were cut down as part of a canker eradication program in 2001, reports say. The compensation order could benefit nearly 41,000 Palm Beach County residents.

Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Robin Rosenberg ruled on Dec. 7 that the destruction of the trees constituted a "taking" under the Florida Constitution, "requiring full and just compensation."

The suit was filed on behalf of David and Lillian Mendez, of Boca Raton against the state Agriculture Department. State Agriculture Commissioner Charles H. Bronson said the agency plans to appeal.

For more than 20 years, the state tried unsuccessfully to stopthe spread of the tree disease from Southeast Florida into thecommercial citrus belt of Central Florida.

Though canker is harmless to humans, it causes blemishes onfruit. Some experts say the disease weakens the tree anddecreases its production.

After spending nearly $500 million since 1995 and failing tostop the disease, the federal and state governments gave up inJanuary 2006.

During the eradication effort, the state gave homeowners a $100Wal-Mart voucher for the first tree cut, encouraging residentsto replant other trees, shrubs or plants. The state also wrotechecks for $55 each for all other citrus trees removed from ayard.

Four similar suits are filed in Broward, Lee, Miami-Dade and Orange counties. Trial started for the Broward suit on Dec. 3.

A jury trial is set for March 31 to determine how much the state owes the plaintiffs in the Palm Beach suit. Plaintiffs' counsel Robert C. Gilbert said his legal team will argue that homeowners should at least receive $400 per tree on average, based on the Department of Agriculture's own estimates. In Palm Beach County alone that would total more than $25 million, he said.

GANNETT CO: Continues to Face ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Colo.---------------------------------------------------------------Gannett Co. Inc. still faces a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

On Dec. 31, 2003, two employees of the company's television station KUSA in Denver filed the suit against the company and the Gannett Retirement Plan on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals who participated in the Plan after Jan. 1, 1998, the date that certain amendments to the Plan took effect.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the current pension plan formula adopted in that amendment violated the age discrimination accrual provisions of the ERISA. They seek to have their post-1997 benefits recalculated and seek other equitable relief.

The court has granted the plaintiffs motion to certify a class.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “Wells, et al. v. Gannett Retire Plan, et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-02671-RPM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Richard P. Matsch.

GENERAL MOTORS: First Circuit Considers Appeal in Antitrust Case----------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard oral arguments on General Motors Corp.'s consolidated appeal of an order that certified a nationwide class of buyers and lessees in the purported class action, “In re New Market Vehicle Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation Cases.”

Initially, some 79 purported class actions were filed in various state and federal courts on behalf of all purchasers of new motor vehicles in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2001 (Class Action Reporter, April 16, 2007).

The defendants include:

-- General Motors Corp., -- General Motors of Canada Ltd. along with Ford, -- Daimler Chrysler, -- Toyota, -- Honda, -- Nissan and BMW, -- their Canadian affiliates, -- the National Automobile Dealers Association, and -- the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association.

The federal court actions were consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings in federal court under the caption “In re New Market Vehicle Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation Cases,” in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine.

The nearly identical complaints alleged that the defendant manufacturers, aided by the association defendants, conspired among themselves and with their dealers to prevent the sale to U.S. citizens of vehicles produced for the Canadian market and sold by dealers in Canada.

The complaints alleged that new vehicle prices in Canada are 10% to 30% lower than those in the U.S. and that preventing the sale of these vehicles to U.S. citizens resulted in the payment of supracompetitive prices by U.S. consumers. In addition, the complaints also alleged unjust enrichment and violations of state unfair trade practices act.

The court ruled on March 21, 2007 that it will certify 20 separate statewide class actions for damages under various state law theories under Federal Rule 23(b)(3), covering the period from Jan. 1, 2001 to April 30, 2003.

General Motors has appealed the certification of the damages classes following the entry of the class certification order and anticipates that its appeal will be consolidated with its pending appeal of a prior order certifying a nationwide class for injunctive relief only.

On Oct. 3, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard oral arguments on the company's consolidated appeal of the orders of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine certifying 20 separate statewide class actions for damages under various state law theories and certifying a nationwide class for injunctive relief only.

General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing of cars, trucks and parts. The Company develops, manufactures and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Lawsuit in Canada Over U.S.-Made Vehicles---------------------------------------------------------------General Motors Corp. is facing a purported class action in Ontario Superior Court of Justice that alleges defendants conspired among themselves and with their dealers to prevent the sale to Canadian citizens of lower-cost U.S.-made vehicles.

On Sept. 25, 2007, a claim was filed on behalf of a purported class of actual and intended purchasers of vehicles in Canada alleging that a conspiracy was now preventing U.S. vehicles from being sold to Canadians.

General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing of cars, trucks and parts. The Company develops, manufactures and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.

On Oct. 18, 2005, the United Automobile Workers (UAW) and two hourly retirees filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of hourly retirees, spouses, and dependents, seeking to enjoin unilateral modifications by the company to hourly retiree health-care benefits, claiming that such benefits are unalterably vested.

The company though maintains that retiree health-care benefits are not vested and that it has expressly reserved the right to make unilateral changes.

On Oct. 29, 2005, the company and the UAW entered into a memorandum of understanding that provided for a number of changes to health care coverage for both UAW represented active employees and UAW retirees.

The lawsuit followed months of negotiations between the company and the UAW regarding changes to retiree health-care benefits and is the initial step in implementing this agreement.

On Dec. 16, 2005, the company, the UAW and the putative classrepresentatives finalized a settlement agreement and submittedmotions to the court for certification of the class, preliminaryapproval of the final settlement and approval of the proposednotice to class members.

On Dec. 22, 2005, the district court certified the class andpreliminarily approved the UAW Health Care Settlement Agreement,among General Motors, the UAW, and the putative classrepresentatives.

The court's March 31, 2006 order approving the UAW Health CareSettlement Agreement, on a class-wide basis has been appealed tothe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit by a small number of individual objectors.

The suit is “United Automobile, Aerospace and AgriculturalImplement Workers of America, et al. v. General Motors Corp., Case No. 2:05-cv-73991-RHC-VMM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Robert H. Cleland with referral to Judge Virginia M. Morgan.

GENERAL MOTORS: Special Master Appointed in Securities Lawsuit--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan appointed a special master for the purpose of facilitating settlement negotiations in the case, “In re General Motors Corporation Securities and Derivative Litigation.”

On Sept. 19, 2005, a purported class action complaint, “Folksam Asset Management v. General Motors, et al.,” was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants:

Plaintiffs purported to bring the claim on behalf of purchasers of the company's debt and/or equity securities from Feb. 25, 2002 to March 16, 2005. The complaint alleged that defendants violated Section 10(b) and, with respect to the individual defendants, Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act.

The complaint also alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12(a), and, with respect to the individual defendants, Section 15 of the Securities Act, in connection with certain registered debt offerings during the class period.

In particular, the complaint alleged that the company's cash flows during the class period were overstated based on the reclassification of certain cash items described in its 2004 Form 10-K.

The reclassification involves cash flows relating to the financing of GMAC wholesale receivables from dealers that resulted in no net cash receipts and the company's decision to revise Consolidated Statements of Net Cash for the years ended 2002 and 2003.

The complaint also alleged misrepresentations relating to forward-looking statements of the company's 2005 earnings forecast that were later revised significantly downward.

In October 2005, a substantially identical suit was filed and consolidated with the Folksam case as, “Galliani v. General Motors, et al.” The consolidated suit is now called, “In re General Motors Securities Litigation.”

On Nov. 18, 2005, plaintiffs in the Folksam case filed an amended complaint, which added several additional investors as plaintiffs, extended the end of the class period to Nov. 9, 2005, and named as additional defendants three current and one former member of the company's audit committee, as well as its independent accountants, Deloitte & Touche LLP.

In addition to the claims asserted in the original complaint, the amended complaint also added allegations regarding the company's Form SEC 8-K dated Nov. 8, 2005, which reported that its 2001 earnings would be restated and added a claim against defendants Wagoner and General Motors Acceptance Corporation Devine for rescission of their bonuses and incentive compensation during the class period.

It also included further allegations regarding the company's accounting for pension obligations, restatement of income for 2001, and financial results for the first and second quarters of 2005.

Neither the original complaint nor the amended complaint specify the amount of damages sought and the defendants have no means to estimate damages the plaintiffs will seek based upon the limited information available in the complaint. Defendants have not yet filed their response to the complaints, but intend to vigorously defend these actions.

On Dec. 13, 2005, defendants in "In re General Motors Securities Litigation," and in certain other litigation against the company filed a Motion with the JPMDL to transfer and consolidate those cases for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

On Jan. 5, 2006, defendants submitted to the JPML an Amended Motion seeking to add to their original Motion the cases:

for consolidated pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

On April 17, 2006, the JPML entered an order transferring, “Inre General Motors Corp. Securities Litigation” to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with:

-- "Stein v. Bowles, et al.;"

-- "Rosen, et al. v. General Motors Corp., et al.;"

-- "Gluckstern v. Wagoner, et al.;" and

-- "Orr v. Wagoner, et al."

While the motion was pending, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed "Rosen."

The case is now captioned as “In re General Motors Corp. Securities and Derivative Litigation.”

In October 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan appointed a special master for the purpose of facilitating settlement negotiations.

General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing of cars, trucks and parts. The Company develops, manufactures and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.

In October 2007, the parties reached a tentative settlement that would resolve certain claims in putative class actions related to alleged defects in the engine cooling systems in GM vehicles.

The settlement as negotiated would apply to claims related to vehicles sold in the U.S. with a 3.1, 3.4, or 3.8-liter engine or to the use of Dexcool engine coolant in sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks with a 4.3-liter engine from 1996 through 2000.

Once definitive settlement agreements have been executed, they will be submitted for approval to the appropriate courts.

The tentative settlement does not include claims asserted in several different alleged class actions related to alleged gasket failures in certain other engines, including 4.3, 5.0 and 5.7-liter engines (without model year restrictions), or claims relating to alleged coolant related failures in vehicles other than those covered by the tentative settlement.

General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing of cars, trucks and parts. The Company develops, manufactures and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.

GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Consolidated ERISA Litigation in Mich.--------------------------------------------------------------General Motors Corp. reached a tentative settlement in the matter “In re General Motors Corp. ERISA Litigation,” which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

In May 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan consolidated three related purported class actions brought under Employee Retirement Income Security Act against General Motors and other named defendants who are alleged to be fiduciaries of the General Motors stock purchase programs and personal savings plans for salaried and hourly employees, under the case caption, “In re General Motors Corp. ERISA Litigation.”

In June 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint against General Motors, the Investment Funds Committee of the General Motors board, its individual members, General Motors's chairman and chief executive officer, members of General Motors's Employee Benefits Committee during the putative class period, General Motors's wholly owned subsidiary General Motors Investment Management Corp., and State Street Bank.

The complaint alleged that the General Motors defendants breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants by, among other things, investing their assets, or offering them the option of investing, in General Motors stock on the ground that it was not a prudent investment.

Plaintiffs purported to bring these claims on behalf of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the plans from March 18, 1999 to the present, and sought to recover losses allegedly suffered by the plans.

The complaint did not specify the amount of damages sought, and defendants have no means at this time to estimate damages the plaintiffs will seek based upon the limited information available in the complaint.

On July 17, 2006, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated class action complaint, which principally added allegations about General Motors' restated earnings and reclassification of cash flows, but which did not name any additional defendants or assert any new claims.

On Aug. 24, 2006, the General Motors defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. No determination has been made that the case may be maintained as a class action.

In August 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

In October 2007, the parties reached a tentative settlement. Once a definitive settlement agreement has been executed, it will be submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for approval.

General Motors Corp. -- http://www.gm.com/-- is primarily engaged in the worldwide development, production and marketing of cars, trucks and parts. The Company develops, manufactures and markets its vehicles worldwide through its four automotive regions: GM North America, GM Europe, GM Latin America/Africa/Mid-East and GM Asia Pacific.

GENESEE & WYOMING: Units Settle Suit Over Outremont Yard Noise --------------------------------------------------------------Subsidiaries of Genesee & Wyoming, Inc. along with Canadian Pacific Railway have reached a settlement in a class action over noise at the Outremont rail yard to proceed.

In February 2002, Mr. Paquin, an individual living adjacent to the Outremont rail yard, filed a motion for authorization of class certification in the Quebec Superior Court in Canada in connection with a claim against two of the company's subsidiaries, Genesee Rail-One Inc., now Genesee & Wyoming Canada Inc., and Quebec-Gatineau Railway Inc., as well as Canadian Pacific.

Mr. Paquin alleged that the noise from the Outremont rail yard causes significant nuisance problems to the residents who live near the rail yard. Canadian Pacific owns the rail yard with part of it being leased and operated by Quebec-Gatineau Railway Inc.

Plaintiff described the proposed class as comprised of all owners and tenants of dwellings who have lived within a defined section of the Outremont neighborhood in Montreal, which surrounds the rail yard.

Mr. Paquin requested the issuance of an injunction in order to limit the hours when the rail yard may operate. Plaintiff has not alleged any specific monetary claim with respect to the damages of other members of the class, but is seeking to recover for his “trouble and inconvenience” as well as for “potential devaluation of the value of his property.”

Following a May 2007 settlement conference, the Parties agreed on the terms of a settlement agreement whereby all outstanding claims under the class action will be dropped.

The settlement agreement remains subject to review and approval by the class members and the Quebec Superior Court, according to the company's Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Connecticut-based Genesee & Wyoming Inc. -- http://www.gwrr.com-- is an owner and operator of short line and regional freight railroads in the U.S., Australia, Canada and Mexico, and owns a minority interest in a railroad in Bolivia. It has interests in 48 railroads located in the United States (42), Canada (3), Australia (1), Mexico (1) and Bolivia (1). The Company also leases and manages railroad transportation equipment in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, and provides freight car switching and ancillary rail services.

GENZYME CORP: Settles Tracking Stock Structure Suits for $64M--------------------------------------------------------------Genzyme Corp. reached a $64,000,000 settlement that effectively concludes all litigation against the company following a consolidation of Genzyme's tracking stock structure in 2003, according to the company's Nov. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.

Through June 30, 2003, the company had three outstanding series of common stock, which we referred to as tracking stocks; Genzyme General Stock (which we now refer to as Genzyme Stock), Biosurgery Stock and Molecular Oncology Stock.

Four lawsuits were filed against the company regarding the exchange of all of the outstanding shares of Biosurgery Stock for shares of Genzyme Stock in connection with the elimination of our tracking stocks in July 2003.

Each of the lawsuits was a purported class action on behalf of holders of Biosurgery Stock.

First MSC Case

The first case, filed in the Massachusetts Superior Court (MSC) in May 2003, alleged a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in our charter and a breach of our board of directors' fiduciary duties.

The plaintiff in this case sought an injunction to adjust the exchange ratio for the tracking stock exchange. The MSC dismissed the complaint in its entirety in November 2003.

Upon appeal, the Massachusetts Appeals Court upheld the dismissal by the MSC of the fiduciary duty claim, but reversed the earlier decision to dismiss the implied covenant claim.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) granted the company's petition for further appellate review. On June 4, 2007, the SJC reversed the Appeals Court's decision and affirmed dismissal of the complaint in its entirety.

On July 25, 2007, the SJC denied the plaintiff's petition for rehearing.

Other MSC Cases & N.Y. Litigation

Two substantially similar cases were filed in the MSC in August and October 2003.

These cases were consolidated in January 2004, and in July 2004, the consolidated case was stayed pending disposition of a fourth case, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in June 2003.

As amended, this complaint alleged violations of federal securities laws, as well as various state law claims, related to the exchange, on behalf of a certified class of holders of Biosurgery Stock as of May 8, 2003.

On Aug. 6, 2007, the company reached an agreement-in-principle with counsel for the plaintiff class to settle and dismiss this case for approximately $64 million. A definitive settlement agreement was approved by the court on Oct. 26, 2007.

Because the members of the class in the New York action released all claims, the settlement has, as a practical matter, resolved the consolidated case in the MSC.

Settlement Terms

Under the terms of the settlement, Genzyme will pay a total of $64 million to a class of shareholders who held Genzyme Biosurgery stock on May 8, 2003 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2007).

This settlement will result in the dismissal of the case in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which, in turn, Genzyme believes will result in the dismissal of a related case currently pending in the Massachusetts Superior Court. The terms of the settlement are subject to court approval.

Genzyme Corp. -- http://www.genzyme.com-- is a biotechnology company. The Company operates in five segments. Renal develops, manufactures and distributes products that treat patients suffering from renal diseases, including chronic renal failure.

The suit stems from a case that arose in February 2002, when uncremated bodies were discovered on the property of Tommy Ray and Clara Marsh in Northwest Georgia, which was insured under a homeowner's policy issued by Georgia Farm Bureau. Tri-State Crematories operated on the property, but bodies being delivered to Tri-State were not being cremated. Instead, they were buried or hidden around the property.

Lawsuits were filed by affected family members against Tri-State, the Marshes and the funeral homes that contracted with Tri-State to deliver bodies for cremation.

A class action resulted (Tri-State Crematory Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division). The class settled with the funeral homes in February 2004 and proceeded to trial in August 2004 against the Marshes. By the trial date, Georgia Farm Bureau had entered into an agreement with the Marshes, that, for consideration, the Marshes agreed there was no coverage -- and therefore Georgia Farm Bureau did not participate in the upcoming trial.

As the trial began in late August 2004, the class reached a settlement against the Marshes for $80 million and the Court approved the settlement, entered a Final Order and Judgment and so notified the class. This settlement contemplated an action against Georgia Farm Bureau to seek insurance proceeds to satisfy the judgment.

Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, LLP was brought in for the class action litigation as local counsel on behalf of the class. The case was vigorously prosecuted with appeals to both the Georgia Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Multiple summary judgment motions were pending by both parties when the Court ordered mediation. The class received $18 million even though the homeowner's policy had a coverage limit of $100,000 per occurrence, and despite numerous and difficult coverage defenses, exclusions and other defenses. Qualified class members each received approximately $12,000.

About Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood

Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, LLP maintains offices in Atlanta and Columbus, Georgia. The firm specializes in complex, class action and commercial litigation. Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, LLP also represents individuals in catastrophic personal injury and wrongful death litigation. For more information concerning this case, or for other information, please contact us at in Atlanta at 404-523-7706 or in Columbus at 706-324-0050 or visit http://www.pmkm.com

HERTZ CORP: Faces Georgia Suit Over Alleged Discrimination-----------------------------------------------------------The Hertz Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed Dec. 6 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging the company favors Muslims, the CourtHouse News Service reports.

Named plaintiff Ricky Menuel claims Hertz gives Muslim workers paid breaks to pray several times a day, but doesn't give non-Muslims similar breaks.

He brings this action pursuant to Title VII of The civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 USC Section 2000e et seq, to secure protection of and redress deprivation of rights secured by the above statutes providing for injunctive and other relief against discrimination based on religion.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class including all current and former hourly paid Hertz employees, wheresoever located, who, during the applicable limitations period, were not granted or allowed to take paid breaks that adjusted their hourly rate of pay in a manner equal to the Muslim hourly employees pursuant to Hertz's Islamic-prayer policy.

He wants the court to rule on:

(a) whether defendant has a policy or practice of permitting Muslim hourly employees to take paid prayer breaks;

(b) whether defendant has a policy or practice of not permitting non-Muslim hourly employees to take paid breaks comparable to paid prayer breaks permitted for Muslim hourly employees;

(d) whether defendant has discriminated against non-Muslim employees because of their religion; and

(e) whether non-Muslim hourly employees who were not permitted to take paid breaks similar to the paid Islamic prayer breaks taken by Muslim employees have been disadvantaged with respect to a term condition or privilege of employment.

Plaintiff prays that the court do the following:

-- certify plaintiffs claims under Title VII as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) and, pursuant to rule 23(b)(3), direct notice to all eligible class members who can be identified by reasonable effort on part of the defendant;

-- issue a declaratory judgment that defendant has engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII with respect to plaintiff and all similarly situated members of the class he seeks to represent;

-- issue an injunction directing that defendant no longer engage in unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII with respect to plaintiff and all similarly situated members of the class he seeks to represent;

-- require defendant to pay plaintiff and all eligible members of the class compensation as a result of defendants discriminatory conduct covering the applicable limitations period;

-- award plaintiff and all similarly situated members of the class he seeks to represent economic damages, pre- judgment interest, punitive damages and their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and expenses of suit;

-- permit a trial by jury on all issues so triable; and

-- provide such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

The suit is "Ricky Menuel et al. v. The Hertz Corp., Case No. 1:07-CV-3031," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

LOUISIANA: Class Status of Suit Over Traffic Citations Affirmed---------------------------------------------------------------Judge Curtis Calloway of the Parish of East Baton Rouge reaffirmed the class-action status of a suit against the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Land Line Magazine reports.

The suit was filed by Gary Ring, a member of Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assoc., six years ago. Mr. Ring, who was from Virginia, was issued a citation in Louisiana for passing the scale in March 2000. His suit challenges he constitutionality of Louisiana’s on-the-spot fines at weigh stations and the administrative review of state-issued traffic citations.

The case could go to a jury by late summer 2008, Madro Bandaries, Mr. Ring’s attorney, told Land Line Magazine. Mr. Bandaries believes as many as 15,000 truckers and motorists were cited under the now defunct Louisiana State Act 32:388.

MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Settles Md. Securities Fraud Suit for $6M-------------------------------------------------------------Martek Biosciences Corp. entered into a tentative settlement of all claims in a securities class action litigation filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland alleging, among other things, violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The proposed settlement of the class action will include a cash payment to the settlement fund of $6 million, all of which will be paid by the Company's insurer.

Since May 4, 2005, several other putative class actions making similar allegations were filed against the company and certain of its officers.

The court entered orders consolidating these cases, appointing lead plaintiffs and approving lead plaintiffs' counsel and liaison counsel.

On Nov. 18, 2005, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in "In re Martek Biosciences Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. MJG 05-1224."

While the court has not made a determination of whether a putative class can be certified, the consolidated complaint claims to be filed on behalf of the purchasers of the company's common stock during a purported class period beginning Dec. 9, 2004 and ending April 28, 2005.

At this time, plaintiffs have not specified the amount of damages they are seeking in the actions. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b- 5, promulgated thereunder, and violations of Section 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The consolidated complaint alleges generally that the company and the individual defendants made false or misleading public statements and failed to disclose material facts regarding its business and prospects in public statements the company made or failed to make during the period and, in the case of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 claims, in the company's January 2005prospectus.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on Feb. 3, 2006, and a hearing before the court on this motion was held on May 22, 2006.

On June 14, 2006, the court denied our motion to dismiss and on July 25, 2006, the court entered a scheduling order for further proceedings in the case.

Subsequently, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the claims arising under the Securities Act of 1933, leaving only the alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the action.

On Sept. 20, 2006, the court approved the dismissal of the 1933 Act claims. Additionally, on Sept. 21, 2006, the court approved the parties' stipulation certifying a class to prosecute claims under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Subject to certain exceptions, the stipulated class generally consists of all persons who either purchased Martek common stock during the class period of Dec. 9, 2004 through April 28, 2005, inclusive or otherwise acquired, without purchasing, Martek common stock during the class period from a person or entity who purchased those particular shares of Martek stock during the class period.

Proceedings are not expected to be complete until 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 8, 2007).

The settlement will result in the dismissal of the claims against Martek and all other defendants, subject to final court approval.

The parties anticipate filing in the near future a motion in the federal court asking for approval of the proposed settlement, which is required before the settlement becomes effective and final. No assurances can be given that the settlement ultimately will be approved by the court.

The suit is "In re Martek Biosciences Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. MJG 05-1224," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland under Judge Marvin J. Garbis.

MEDTRONIC INC: Ontario Court Certifies Suit Over Defibrillators---------------------------------------------------------------An Ontario judge certified as class action a suit filed by a group of Canadians who claim Medtronic Inc. failed to warn consumers of a defect in the batteries installed in its defibrillators, Joe Schneider of Bloomberg News reports.

Ontario Superior Judge Alexandra Hoy made the ruling released Dec. 6 in Toronto, allowing the plaintiffs to seek a portion of Medtronic profits for damages. Judge Hoy dismissed a part of the lawsuit that claimed Medtronic conspired to keep the defect hidden.

The case was filed by Frank Peter, Case No.: 05-CV-295910.

Lawsuits in Canada

The law firms Rochon Genova LLP and Roy Elliott Kim O'Connor LLPare solicitors of record for the plaintiffs in a proposed classaction against Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic of Canada Ltd. Thesolicitors of record are working with Sutts, Strosberg LLP andLerners LLP.

On February 10, 2005, Medtronic provided notice that certainimplantable cardiac defibrillators and cardiac resynchronizationtherapy defibrillators manufactured between April, 2001 andDecember, 2003 had a potential battery shorting problem whichcould result in rapid battery depletion. If the battery in adefibrillator shorts out, the device will not function and isnot able to deliver the therapy required if the user developspotentially life-threatening arrhythmias. Since the batteriesare located within the implanted defibrillator, the device wouldhave to be surgically removed in order to eliminate the defect.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration characterized the noticeprovided by Medtronic as a recall.

There are two proposed classes in this action. The first classis comprised of all persons who were implanted in Canada withthe following Medtronic defibrillators manufactured betweenApril, 2001 and December, 2003:

The Polk County District Court has granted final approval to the $180 million settlement of the antitrust class action (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 6, 2007).

The suit was filed in 2000. It claimed that Microsoft engaged in illegal monopolization and anticompetitive conduct between 1994 and 2006 that caused customers to pay more for software.

Plaintiffs claimed that Microsoft violated Iowa antitrust laws. Because of this, the lawsuit claims that consumers and businesses paid more for Microsoft Software. Microsoft denied the claims and says it developed and sold high quality software products at fair and reasonable prices.

The class includes all individuals and businesses that purchased a license for Microsoft software for use in Iowa from someone other than Microsoft between May 18, 1994, and June 30, 2006. The class also includes Iowa State and its local governments that purchased a license for Microsoft software for use in Iowa from someone other than Microsoft between July 1, 2002 and June30, 2006.

Microsoft settled the case for about $179.95 million.

Class members are entitled to receive:

- $16 for each copy of Windows or MS-DOS; - $25 for each copy of Microsoft Excel; - $29 for each copy of Microsoft Office; and - $10 for each copy of Microsoft Word, Works and Home Essential software.

Payment will be in the form of cash or vouchers that can be used towards the purchase of computers, peripheral computer hardware, and software from any manufacturer, not just Microsoft.

Half of any funds that are not claimed will be provided as vouchers for hardware, software and technology services to Iowa public schools. One hundred percent of the volume license vouchers claimed but not redeemed will also be provided to Iowa public schools.

Lead plaintiffs in the suit are Joe Comes of Riley Paint Inc., an Iowa corporation, Skeffington's Formal Wear of Iowa Inc., and Patricia Anne Larsen.

QANTAS AIRWAYS: Admission Likely to Bolster Price Fixing Suit -------------------------------------------------------------Qantas Airways Inc.'s guilty plea to the U.S. Department of Justice for fixing freight rates is believed to have strengthened a class action in Australia, reports say.

In November, Qantas Airways agreed to pay $70 million in fines for fixing freight rates with other airlines. The charge was for shipping freight on the Pacific route between Australia and the U.S. between January 2000 and February 2006.

Maurice Blackburn's Kim Parker told The Daily Telegraph "Qantas' admission that it has engaged in this illegal process is a key development” in the class action. The law firm has launched the AU$200 million class action against Qantas and other airlines.

In a writ lodged by Maurice Blackburn in Australian Federal Court, it is alleged that seven large international airlines secretly agreed to use the rise in fuel prices and security costs after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the Iraq war, as an excuse to over-inflate freight charges (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 1, 2007).

It has been alleged Qantas has targeted larger travel retailers that would add important weight to the action. The industry trade journal Travel Today reported in September that Qantas had offered to make improved "override" payments to Australia's largest travel group, Stella, on the condition its subsidiaries withdrew from the class action.

Qantas denied the claim.

Override payments are the extra commissions -- often based on volume -- that a travel agent can receive from an airline on top of the flat commission they get for each ticket sale.

Stella is reported to have warned its Harvey World Travel and Travelscene subsidiaries that the sweetened deal would be jeopardized if they did not withdraw from the action.

In a report by Peter Gosnell of news.com.au, a spokesman for Jetset said the agency had publicly declined to join the class action in November 2006 prior to Salter & Gordon's filing of a notice of the class action. The notice was filed December 15 last year.

Qantas has pleaded guilty to the U.S. Department of Justice of fixing freight rates. It agreed to pay a $70 million fine. The admission is believed to have strengthened a class action in Australia over allegations it fixed freight rates with other airlines.

SCOTIABANK: Toronto Law Firms Launch Second Unpaid Overtime Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Lawyers from two Canadian law firms, Roy Elliott Kim O'Connor LLP and Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP are launching a second unpaid overtime class action suit, this time against Scotiabank.

The action covers thousands of current and former non-management, non-unionized employees of Scotiabank who are or were personal bankers or other front-line customer service employees (limited to personal bankers, commercial bankers and account executives) working at Scotiabank retail branch offices across Canada.

The representative of the class action is Cindy Fulawka, a personal banking representative who has worked in several Scotiabank branches in Saskatchewan and Ontario for over 15 years. Based on her own experience, she claims the unpaid overtime situation is widespread at the bank among non management employees.

"The average overtime I have been required to work ranges from ten to fifteen hours a week, and often worse during RRSP season. We are expected to be available 24/7 during this time, making calls on the weekend and in the evenings, without overtime payments," she said.

"Unpaid overtime appears to be widespread in the financial services industry, affecting some of the lowest paid and most vulnerable employees," said Louis Sokolov, Partner, Sack Goldblatt Mitchell. "Because of a lack of effective enforcement of federal labour laws, class actions, like this one can be an effective means to compel employers to comply with the law."

Douglas Elliott, Partner, Roy Elliott Kim O'Connor said that "since we launched our class action against Canadian Imperial Bank Corp. last June, we have been able to get evidence from employees of that bank in all provinces and two territories to put before the Court - this is an extraordinary amount of support and shows how frustrated bank employees feel.

"We said then that we suspected that CIBC was not the only Canadian bank that was failing to pay its employees for the hours they actually worked. This second case demonstrates that the problem does not appear to be unique to one bank," Mr. Elliott added.

The statement of claim alleges that class members are assigned heavier workloads than can be completed within their standard working hours. They are required or permitted to work overtime to meet the demands of their jobs and Scotiabank fails to pay for the overtime work in direct contravention of the Canadian Labour Code under which they are regulated.

Bill Selnes, Partner, Kapoor, Selnes & Klimm in Saskatchewan and member of the national legal team pointed out that "unpaid overtime doesn't only happen in central Canada. It affects bank employees in all regions of the country and in rural, as well as urban areas."

On June 5, 2007, Elliott and Sokolov introduced the lead plaintiff Dara Fresco and the details of her complaint against CIBC for unpaid overtime (Class Action Reporter, June7, 2007). Ms. Fresco represents current and former non-management employees of CIBC in the largest employment-related class action ever undertaken in Canada.

On November 15, 2007 plaintiff's lawyers filed evidence in support of certifying the class action from current and former CIBC employees representing every province and two territories. This evidence confirms that Fresco's complaints are common among CIBC employees across the country.

The action announced on December 10 against Scotiabank is an entirely new class action lawsuit. However, it alleges many of the same types of problems relating to unpaid overtime.

In order to facilitate other affected Scotiabank employees across Canada joining this class action, REKO and SGM are working with Camp Fiorante Matthews in British Columbia, Chivers Carpenter Lawyers in Alberta, Kapoor, Selnes & Klimmin Saskatchewan, Myers Weinberg LLP in Manitoba, Melancon, Marceau, Grenier et Sciortino in Quebec and Pink Breen Larkin in Atlantic Canada. Employees will have access to local counsel to determine whether they qualify to be a member of the class.

The law firms will attach the Scotiabank case to their existing web site: http://www.unpaidovertime.caand phone number 1-888- 687-2431 which allow other class members to request, in strict confidence, more information about the class action.

(4) the Medicor Bankruptcy has sent out a Proof of Claim form that must be sent in before Dec. 3, 2007.

Settlement with Defendant UBS for $23 Million

On Oct. 2 and 3, 2007, a two-day court ordered mediation took place before the court appointed mediator former federal judge Layn Philips. No settlements were reached at the mediation, but productive settlement discussions continued after the mediation with defendant UBS Financial Services, Inc. As a result of the continued talks, an actual settlement was negotiated pursuant to which, subject to court approval, UBS has agreed to contribute $23 million in exchange for a full release from any SWX and QES related claims. Claimants will receive a formal notice of a settlement if it is preliminarily approved by Judge Robert C. Jones of the U.S. Federal Court in Las Vegas.

Transfer of Sorrell Class Action to Las Vegas

On Oct. 18, 2007, the U.s. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in Washington D.C. ordered the transfer of the Sorrell class action from Federal Court in Los Angeles, California to Federal Court in Las Vegas, so that the class action could be coordinated and consolidated with other litigation filed in Las Vegas, including another class action filed by a Qualified Exchange Services, Inc. claimant. The SWX litigation in Federal Court will now be referred to as In Re: Internal Revenue Service S1031 Tax Deferred Exchange Litigation, case number 2:07-cv-01394-RCJ-LRL.

Class Certification

On Oct. 22, 2007, Hollister & Brace filed the Motion to Certify the Class. A Memorandum of Law offered in support of the Motion identifies a hearing date of Nov. 26, 2007. Because the class action was transferred to Las Vegas, that hearing will not take place. A new hearing date will be set so that the Motion can be heard by Judge Jones at the U.S. Federal Court in Las Vegas.

Medicor Bankruptcy Proceedings

On Oct. 23, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court in Delaware handling the bankruptcy of Medicor Ltd. (breast implant company in Las Vegas of Medicor Ltd. founder Donald McGhan), issued an Order which establishes a Dec. 3, 2007 deadline for filing claims with any of the Medicor debtors.

Case Background

The founder of Medicor, Ltd. and several others were named asdefendants in a purported class action flied in Santa BarbaraSuperior Court in California over an alleged ponzi scheme (Class Action Reporter, March 15, 2007).

Donald McGhan is facing a suit filed by the law firm ofHollister & Brace and led by attorneys Robert Brace and MichaelDenver. The suit was brought on behalf of approximately 130people residing in a dozen states who lost more than $80 millionentrusted to exchange accommodators. They allege the money wasused in a Ponzi scheme masterminded by Mr. McGhan. MarshaSlotten, a real estate broker in Henderson, Nevada is one of thelead plaintiffs in the case.

WAL-MART STORES: Denied Review of Class Certification in “Dukes”----------------------------------------------------------------A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the sexual discrimination case, “Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.” to remain a class action, but limited the potential number of plaintiffs.

The majority ruled that women who left the company before the case became effective and could not benefit from changes to the company's pay and promotion rules should be excluded. The decision could exclude between 75,000 and 250,000 former employees out of the more than 1.6 million members, Joseph M. Sellers, plaintiffs' co-lead counsel and a partner at Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll told The Wall Street Journal.

The potential impact varies because the effective date of the suit may change depending on what the court allows. Originally, plaintiffs sought to include all women who worked at the company between December 1998 and the present. The effective date may change to when the case was filed in June 2001 or to October 1999, when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission accepted the case, Mr. Sellers said.

The court said it would not reconsider its own decision affirming class certification to the case, but would allow both sides to appeal to the full court.

The class action was commenced in June 2001 and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It was brought on behalf of all past and present female employees in all of the Company's retail stores and warehouse clubs in the U.S.

The complaint alleges that the Company has engaged in a pattern and practice of discriminating against women in promotions, pay, training, and job assignments.

On June 21, 2004, the district court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The class, which was certified by the district court for purposes of liability, injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive damages, and lost pay, subject to certain exceptions, includes all women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail store at any time since Dec. 26, 1998, who have been or maybe subjected to the pay and management track promotions policies and practices challenged by the plaintiffs.

The class as certified currently includes approximately 1.6 million present and former female associates.

The Company believes that the district court's ruling is incorrect.

On Aug. 31, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the Company's petition for discretionary review of the ruling.

On Feb. 6, 2007, a divided three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming the district court’s certification order.

On Feb. 20, 2007, the Company filed a petition asking that a larger panel of the court reconsider the decision. On Dec. 11, the court allowed the case to remain a class action .

Wal-Mart said it would again appeal the decision to the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://www.walmart.com/-- incorporated in October 1969, operates retail stores in various formats around the world. The Company operates through three segments: Wal-Mart Stores segment, which includes Supercenters, Discount Stores and Neighborhood Markets, Sam’s Club segment and International segment. The Wal-Mart Stores segment segmentconsists of three different traditional retail formats, all of which operate in the United States, and Wal-Mart’s online retail format, walmart.com. The Sam’s Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs, which operate in the United States, and the segment’s online retail format, samsclub.com. ItsInternational segment consisted of retail operations in 12 countries and Puerto Rico.

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO SALES AND ADVERSTISINGAmerican Bar AssociationContact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

New Securities Fraud Cases

VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Cohen & Malad Files Securities Fraud Suit------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Cohen & Malad, LLP filed a class action on December 7, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, on behalf of persons who purchased shares of VeriFone Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: PAY) between March 1, 2007 and November 30, 2007.

The class action alleges that VeriFone and certain of its present and former officers violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It is brought against defendants VeriFone Holdings, Inc., Douglas G. Bergeron and Barry Zwarenstein.

The complaint alleges that VeriFone and certain of its officers and directors made a series of materially false and misleading statements related to VeriFone’s business operations in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On December 3, 2007, VeriFone publicly announced accounting errors that resulted in an overstatement of VeriFone’s inventories and understated VeriFone’ s cost of net revenues, resulting in a 45% drop in VeriFone s stock price. VeriFone stated that investors could no longer rely on VeriFone’ s prior financial statements.

Interested parties may move the court no later than February 4, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Cal. Securities Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of securities of VeriFone Holdings, Inc. from September 1, 2006 through November 30, 2007, inclusive.

The Complaint charges VeriFone and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

VeriFone is a provider of technology that enables electronic payment transactions and value- added services at the point of sale. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

(1) that the Company had materially overstated its inventory due to accounting errors;

(2) that the Company had materially understated its cost of net revenues;

(3) as such, the Company's gross margins were misstated;

(4) that the Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles;

(5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times;

(6) that the Company's integration of Lipman Electronic was not proceeding according to plan;

(7) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and

(8) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well- being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On December 3, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it announced that its financial statements for the three months ended January 31, 2007, the three and six months ended April 30, 2007 and the three and nine months ended July 31, 2007 should no longer be relied upon.

This was due to errors in accounting related to the valuation of in-transit inventory and allocation of manufacturing and distribution overhead to inventory. Each of these accounting errors affected VeriFone's reported costs of net revenues. A preliminary review revealed that these restatements would result in reductions to the Company's previously reported inventory levels of approximately $7.7 million, $16.5 million and $30.2 million as of January 31, 2007, April 30, 2007 and July 31, 2007, respectively. Additionally, the Company's previously reported pre-tax income would be reduced by approximately $8.9 million, $7.0 million and $13.8 million for the three month periods ended January 31, 2007, April 30, 2007 and July 31, 2007, respectively.

On this news, the Company's shares fell $22.00 per share, or over 45.8 percent, to close on December 3, 2007 at $26.03 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.

Interested parties may move the court no later than February 4, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

SECURITY CAPITAL: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Suit in N.Y.----------------------------------------------------------------Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP has filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Security Capital Assurance, Ltd. in the Company's secondary public offering on or about June 6, 2007.

The complaint charges Security Capital and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

Security Capital, through its subsidiaries, provides financial guaranty insurance, reinsurance, and other credit enhancement products to the public finance and structured finance markets in the United States and internationally.

On or about May 25, 2007, Security Capital filed a Form S-1/A Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") for the Secondary Offering. On or about June 6, 2007, the Prospectus (the "Prospectus") with respect to the Secondary Offering, which forms part of the Registration Statement, became effective and more than 9.6 million shares of Security Capital common stock were sold to the public at $31.00 per share, thereby raising more than $300 million.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus contained untrue statements of material facts because they failed to disclose that:

(i) the Company was materially exposed to extremely risky structured financial credit derivatives; and

(ii) the Company was materially exposed to residential mortgage-backed securities relating to sub-prime real estate mortgages.

Interested parties may move the court within sixty days of December 7, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.